Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California

FILED 07/02/21 04:19 PM BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding R. 20-09-001 Broadband Infrastructure Deployment and to (Filed September 10, 2020) Support Service Providers in the State of California.

OPENING COMMENTS OF

FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC. (U 1002 C) CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA INC. DBA FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA (U 1024 C) FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST INC. (U 1026 C) ("FRONTIER")

ON MAY 28, 2021 ASSIGNED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING

Sean P. Beatty BRB Law LLP P.O. Box 70527 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (925) 324-3483 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Frontier

July 2, 2021

1 / 4

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Assigned Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling issued on May 28, 2021 (“Ruling”), Frontier California Inc. (U 1002 C), Citizens Telecommunications Company of California Inc. dba Frontier Communications of California (U 1024 C), and Frontier Communications of the Southwest Inc. (U 1026 C) (collectively, “Frontier”) submit these opening comments as specified in the Ruling. II. FRONTIER EMBRACES THE COMMISSION’S GOAL TO MAKE BROADBAND AVAILABLE TO ALL. First and foremost, Frontier does not base its investment decisions on racial considerations. In fact, Frontier is doing its fair share to combat the digital divide in California. As recently as June 3, 2021, Frontier filed 22 applications through the Commission’s CASF Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) Kicker Program.1 Frontier also filed 22 separate projects for CASF adjacent areas. Frontier has nine CASF grant applications from May 2020 still pending approval – all of which focus on rural areas and would deliver fiber to the home (“FTTH”). The grant filings made in June 2021 are also all FTTH projects serving both low- income and very rural areas. Frontier has also completed projects in the very rural areas of Dessert Shores and Lytle Creek with the assistance of CASF funding. Frontier has also received federal Connect America Fund, Phase II (“CAF II”) amounts to assist deployment of broadband to 90,000 customers; that project is nearly completed and has been successful in hitting many areas that were unserved, including tribal areas. Frontier is generally participating in the RDOF, even without the CASF Kicker assistance, and such funding allows Frontier to deploy FTTH, reaching many rural areas of the state. Frontier’s active involvement in federal and state funding programs to bridge the digital divide demonstrates that it shares the Commission’s goal to make broadband available to as many residents of California as possible. Moreover, Frontier holds a franchise under the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (“DIVCA”), the intent of which is to promote broadband and video deployment.2 Frontier provides video over its fiber-based broadband network and has always

1 The RDOF is a federal source of funds for deploying broadband facilities. The Kicker Program was set up by the Commission to leverage the federal RDOF funds. See D.21-01-003 (January 14, 2021). 2 See Cal. Public Util. Code Section 5810. 1

2 / 4

met (and continues to meet) DIVCA’s requirements to ensure no service provider discriminates against any group of potential residential subscribers because of income.3 DIVCA’s legislative history makes clear its anti-discrimination requirement was intended to guard against “redlining,” where a provider chooses to serve “only higher income neighborhoods and thus provide[s] these areas of the state with the advantages of new technologies and competition but den[ies] the same benefits to lower income neighborhoods.”4 Frontier’s compliance demonstrates it does not discriminate. III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD INCLUDE STUDIES THAT IDENTIFY THE SUBSTANTIAL COST IMPEDIMENTS TO UNIVERSAL BROADBAND. Frontier disagrees that the primary cause of any digital divide is racial animus or aversion to customers in rural areas. Instead, the more obvious explanation is economics. To solve the problem of the digital divide, Frontier contends that the Commission should examine existing cost analysis to help understand the magnitude of the issue. The advocacy pieces characterized as “studies” cited in the Ruling do not help the Commission in this regard. One obvious starting point would be to include in the record a study commissioned by and recently delivered to the Commission titled, the California State Broadband Cost Model (“CBCM”) Report dated December 2020.5 Although Frontier has not vetted the CBCM Report and does not necessarily support each and every conclusion in it, the projection that the cost to provide broadband access at 25/3 mbps to every resident of California would be $5.5 billion6 is the kind of information the Commission should be considering in this proceeding. Similarly, to the extent the Commission is focused on access to broadband, not just deployment of fiber, the Commission must consider how to get computing devices in the hands of low-income families, and particularly low-income families in communities of color which the data show have disproportionately lower rates of access. For example, a study published by the Public Policy Institute of California (“PPIC”) in February 2021 noted that household access to computing devices varies across demographic groups, with African American and Latino

3 Id. 4 See AB 2987, Assembly Floor Analysis at 8, Sept. 5, 2006. 5 The CBCM Report is available at the following link: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/UtilitiesIndustries/Communications/FF/C alifornia%20State%20Broadband%20Cost%20Model_December%202020_12142020.pdf. 6 Upgrading the service to 100/10 mbps would up the cost by $1.3 billion to $6.8 billion. 2

3 / 4

households experiencing disproportionately less ownership of computing devices.7 This impediment is not caused by communications carriers, but it is an impediment the Commission must nonetheless address to fulfill its goals regarding access to broadband and bridging the digital divide. Frontier did not conduct an exhaustive review of every possible published study on the current state of and impediments to access to broadband. The point here is that instead of focusing on studies that point the figure at a speculative basis for the existence of the digital divide, the Commission should instead be gathering data and studies to help it identify the measures to take that will bridge that divide. IV. CONCLUSION. Frontier does not base its broadband investment decisions on racial considerations. Furthermore, the anecdotal evidence represented in the reports cited in the Ruling do not provide an adequate basis to move forward with an industry-wide investigation into historical broadband investment decisions. The Commission should instead collaboratively engage with all communications carriers to identify existing financial and informational impediments to broadband access in both rural areas and urban environments, particularly communities of color. Targeting additional public funds to improve access in under-served communities that are expensive to reach or which lack the resources to purchase the necessary devices to take advantage of broadband services would be an obvious starting point. Frontier stands ready to help the Commission identify obstacles and implement solutions. Respectfully submitted on July 2, 2021, at Oakland, California. BRB Law LLP Sean P. Beatty P.O. Box 70527 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (925) 324-3483 Email: [email protected]

By /s/ Sean P. Beatty Sean P. Beatty

Attorneys for Frontier

7 The PPIC study is available at the following link: https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-digital- divide. 3